And how exactly do you expect the tail to fall off from a hit to any of those?
A 23mm isn’t a 50mm Mineshell.
So you expect the engine to get destroy when hitting a wing?
Or the entire wing to fall off when hitting the wing tip?
This has never been the case.
Note how the tail is removed from 1-3 hits of MG.151. This is on a video that is 7-8 years old at this point.
You are the one that claimed that it would.
This is you.
Are pistons part of the engine? Because if we are going to run with this strawman then a closer parallel is that your argument is that I missed hitting the engine and only hit the pistons which only make up part of the engine.
Your argument is a dumb one.
No, I said a hit to the tail would rip it off in one shot and not a hit to a stabilizer will make the tail fall off.
My argument, that it’s dumb to think that hitting one component and expecting to destroy another, is dumb?
Yeah right 😂
In what world do you live in where the horizontal stabilizer and vertical stabilizer are not components of the tail? What do you think makes up the tail of the aircraft?
2 Likes
The oil cooler was a known weakspot, without which it cannot stay in the air. You don’t need 30mm guns to exploit that.
Elevators and rudders are not particularly strong, nor large. A single hit stands a good chance at completely removing them.
And again, the gameplay difference between dying right now or dying later when you hit the ground is minimal. Standing in front of gunfire should not be encouraged.
Isn’t this exactly what you say should happen though? Clearly no tails fell off.
Good! Again, why should we encourage standing in front of someone shooting at you from within 1km? Especially a plane which last I checked has three cannons?
There is no amount of aiming that can give your guns more damage in this situation. Either your guns hit him and do relevant damage, or you sit there emptying your magazines until The Snail decides that control surfaces covered with fabric, wood, or sub-3mm of aluminum actually shouldn’t be eating cannon shells.
Semantics. The vertical and horizontal stabilizers are obviously part of the tail.
Is it so hard to understand that you won’t blow off the tail when you hit a component that by itself gets blown off when shot?
You also think that shooting a deployed landing gear should rip the wing off?
What are you even trying to argue here, huh?
So? I was referring to how IL-2s ended up getting killed.
A ground attack plane is going to encounter a lot more AA fire than other planes.
So the majority of IL-2s could have been lost due to AA fire, which they were quite vulnerable against, since the armor only protected against machine gun fire.
And under combat conditions you’re not going to get many attempts to hit a IL-2s radiator.
Just watch some flight sim footage and tell me how often players deliberately try to hit an IL-2 there.
You won’t even be able to do so when the starts to turn.
I said that currently a 23mm in WT will one shot a planes tail when hit.
And FeetPics called me a liar and now he is arguing that when you hit the tail controls the tail doesn’t separate.
Basically saying that when I said tail it included the tail controls.
But there’s nothing to argue about as the whole point is the damage a shell can inflict.
It’s very rare for a shell to break the tail while hitting not the tail but the tail controls.
But it doesn’t change the direct hit damage shells inflict to structure, which is so high that 23mm will one shot pretty much and planes wing or tail.
You can’t argue that it’s a pretty big difference whether a tail control is shot off or whether the entire tail falls off.
For the tail to get shot off, the tail needs to be hit, not the controls attached to the tail.
And when either is destroyed in a single hit, it’s simply absurd amount of damage.
You quite honestly appear to not know what the tail of the aircraft is. Or if we are being more technical we can use the term empennage if you prefer.
The bolded statement conflicts with the following.
Let’s break this down barney style for you. There are four components that make up the empennage.
- The Horizontal Stabilizer
- The Vertical Stabilizer
- The Elevator.
- The Rudder.
Your argument is simultaneously that a single 23mm will hit and remove the tail. But also that hitting a stabilizer doesn’t count as hitting the tail or that hitting a control surface on the tail that doesn’t count as hitting the tail.
So we can never ever hit the tail because it is simultaneously made up of its component parts but those component parts cannot be counted as the tail. In fact the tail only exists on the astral plane of human imagination in this case. Schrodinger’s tail if you will.
Keep chase.
Simple as.
The main complain is that it takes 1-2 rounds of 20mil to split a plane in half or a wing in half
Explosive rounds will be better as a way to cripple enemies and make landing other modules easier, Not a 1-for-all solution that it currently is. Stop loading full he/FI belts
1 Like
So how can we talk about removing the tail when the part that separates from the aircraft is no where near the tail controls?
When talking about wings or tails getting shot off, everyone understands what it means.
Yet now somehow it’s a problem when a hit to the elevator somehow doesn’t remove THE TAIL.
The empennage (/ˌɑːmpɪˈnɑːʒ/ or /ˈɛmpɪnɪdʒ/), also known as the tail or tail assembly , is a structure at the rear of an aircraft that provides stability during flight, in a way similar to the feathers on an arrow.
Shooting off the tail means removing all controls at once.
Not removing one part of the whole assembly.
Just how shooting off a wing doesn’t mean removing a wing tip or a flap.
But it’s kinda pointless to discuss this any further.
Fact is that cannons disassemble planes way too fast. And that with explosives shells that hit just as hard as Mineshells.
2 Likes
That’s a He 219 shooting my Suisei’s elevator and doing… not much to it. My plane was still perfectly flyable and I got two air kills soon after.
Here’s a Yak-3 eating a 20mm HEF shell to the wing.
And a Bearcat to the tail.
All things you say are basically impossible, and all in the last few days.
Crippling an enemy serves next to zero purpose, because planes are perfectly flyable until they lose a wing or tail.
Even in Simulator:
Oh, and either the 2nd or 4th images are the result of getting gunned by a B-52’s 6000rpm, 20mm tail gunner.
I landed all of these. I’ve been mainly flying jets so that’s what I have to show. The point is that the “crippling” damage you speak of has surprisingly little effect, especially if you have a well-defended airfield to run back to.
I’ve been using mixed belts for a long time. The advantage to having AP already exists, but it’s obviously never gonna be the preferred choice against a fragile, thin-skinned target like an aircraft.
You are the one that claimed a hit to the tail with a 23mm would remove it 100% of the time. I’ve shown that is not the case. Hence your argument that both the stabilizers and the control surfaces are not the tail.
Which did not happen with only 1 shot on the tail assembly. Not with a single hit on horizontal stabilizer. Not with single hit on vertical stabilizer. Nor on rudder or elevator.
The problem is that you claimed that this happens with 100 percent certainty.
This also isn’t a fact. This is just an opinion and an ill-informed one at that since it appears you base your conclusion purely on feelings and not any objective facts. Nor do you appear to understand why Gaijin has decided to model ineffective surfaces as being detached.
Gaijin could remove the tail/wing detaching mechanic and you would still be complaining when cannon damage makes your plane uncontrollable and causes it to crash.
1 Like
Oh you mean a German plane that has at best 66% explosive rounds for it’s 20mm with complete different ballistics than the other shells?
Or the MK 103 that gets 75% only Mineshells?
A Yak-3 that will not fuze explosive shells with its wings?
Did that Bearcat get hit by a 23mm explosive round?
What are you trying to prove here?
I take any plane with just a single ShVAK and I will completely melt any other plane with a short burst, and you pretend like hits are doing nothing?
„Oh look, a plane survived a single 20mm, proof that guns aren’t reliable and the current damage is totally fine“
2 Likes
Can you fight? Can you perform rolls and rudder kicks so save your life and avoid getting the enemy on your tail?
If you die to a crippled aircraft, its a skill issue, no sugar coating.
Because people pick explosive rounds for defensive armament is a mistake (orange and white pilot on both photos prove it), they think they will nail a wing from a profile that looks like a needle instead of a sail, you load up on AP to kill the pilot instantly to save your life, or set it on fire for a post mortem kill.
But tell me, how many rounds did it take to kill that B-52? did you even aim at a module or did you just aim at the vague future position and kill it?
the front fuselage of aircraft is indestructible, no explosive bullet will pass by btw, and the engine protects the pilot most of the time
But 3 explosive 20mm rounds the size of a firecracker and with the power of one in some cases to the wing, a normally a full metal part of the aircraft the size of a sail boat’s sail means death?
2 Likes
Fighting through and being successful with even black damage has been possible for a long time. The video I am linking is 7 years old and is from the halcyon days that a lot of the people in the thread long for when players were “good”.
Note that Adam gets hit twice in the head on and is still able to fight. Note all of the risks that he is free to take because threat of damage is significantly less. Also note that back then MG.151 was still roughly as potent as it is today with ability to occasionally remove tails + major control surfaces in a single pass.
The only major difference is that these days other types of guns are also able to accomplish similar feats and damage is more consistent. There is no more shooting half your ammo supply into a plane and hoping the server recognizes shrapnel damage as opposed to just disappearing it.
I think if you look at the thread you’ll see there is a strong correlation amongst what people choose to fly and what they think about damage. Most of the damage nerf advocates are people that predominantly play German aircraft and very little of anything else. And most did not play anything else when damage RNG was poor for other aircraft cannons.
Due to belt bug, all shells in a belt have the same initial speeds. Against a target this slow and at a short range it wouldn’t have mattered.
You can clearly see the explosion effect. The smallest shell that could have hit my fabric-covered elevator was 20mm, and yet I’m pretty much unaffected, and my elevator is still there - unlike what you claim. It might even be more likely that the 30mm MK103 shell hit me since those have higher velocity.
You can clearly see the shell exploding on his wing, which also did not negatively affect him significantly.
A mere 20mm HEF shell right at the thinnest point instead. It did not cripple him, or affect his flying in any appreciable way.
Ah, a BURST! Not a single hit like you’ve been pretending.
Pretty sure my Sabre was hit more than once by the 6000rpm M61 in the B-52 and I still flew ~50km back to base with no issues. But the point is that, unlike what you claim, planes aren’t dropping out of the sky from single hits all the time.
In the Mirage I tanked all that from a Crusader and proceeded to kill him. In the 2nd image I was fine enough to speed back to base (with no significant drop in top speed) and no enemy managed to catch me. So yes.
The only exception being the last image where there is no tail control, but I could still do 1000kph+ back to base and barely survive the crash landing.
Because flying face first into HE shells, while closing in on the enemy plane, should somehow be survivable? I made a mistake and should have been punished, instead I flew off completely fine.
I don’t know. I have four cannons and shoot until they explode or lose something important. The belts are 1/3rd API anyway, so even if I hit something the HE can’t pass through or damage enough, the API will destroy that. And I can’t agree with your comment about the front fuselage, those result in very fast kills too.
If I’m in the .50cal planes I can just aim for the fuselage fuel tanks and it’s an easy kill. If somehow that isn’t set on fire, the pilots are surely dead.
Oh so the largest plane in the game is now a standard for not dying to a single hit from a 20mm?
First of all what people claim happened in the game is the equivalent of real life kill claims.
I’ve seen it over and over on the forum where people claimed they hit targets with far more shots than they actually did.
Secondly a 20mm will destroy a wing or tail in at most two shots, sometimes just one, for a single engined fighter.
So 20mm shells combined with the largest aircraft in the game isn’t really a basis to make it seem like they aren’t exactly doing that for WW2 prop planes.
Or tell me how exactly are 23mm or 30mm cannons better than 20mm cannons?
What exactly is the point of 50mm cannons over 37mm cannons against bombers and why should you ever want to use anything other than 20mm cannons instead?
Why is no one using a 30mm MK 108 that could destroy a Spitfire pretty much anywhere in one hit and could destroy a P-47 almost 50% of the time in one hit over a MG 151/20, that should require many more hits to accomplish that result?
Especially in case of a Bf 109 with merely a single 20mm cannon, the 30mm should be an immense improvement. Yet it isn’t.
How can a single 25mm shell with 10g TNT filler blow off the wing of any fighter?
You might want to read his post again. He was not in the B-52…he got shot by the Vulcan tail gunner from the B-52. He is in an F-86 or J-32B in his screenshot.
1 Like